I can tell you about 10-15 more great teams, but let´s leave it like that by now.
In fact, almost any doubles combination between Australian players from 1950 to 1970 makes an almost unbeatable team.It is completely owned by them.

Hoad and Gonzales travelled together in the same car with Hoad's wife, stayed at the same cheap motels, played pool together, and probably drank together.
They once had a supernatural encounter with a bright light while driving together between tour stops at night.

Hoad and Gonzales travelled together in the same car with Hoad's wife, stayed at the same cheap motels, played pool together, and probably drank together.
They once had a supernatural encounter with a bright light while driving together between tour stops at night.

Boycott? That was in 1973. 1972 was a banning. The ILTF banned the contracted pros from their events from January to July 1972, which included the French Open and Wimbledon, and only amateurs and freelance pros could play ILTF events in this period. This action was the final straw before the ATP was formed.

You are right. I used the wrong word. But it does not make a difference: The best players in the world (with exception of Smith, Nastase...) could not play. Especially the best doubles teams were absent with the Hewitt/McMillan duo as exception. Therefore it was rather easy to win at Wimbledon.

Okker/Riessen were a very good team but can´t compare with the record of the two Southafricans ( remember Hewitt is Australian born).

Hoad/Rosewall probably had more potential than reality, because they turned pros very early.I am sure they would have dominated the Gran Slam titles if remained amateur.Would have been great see them against Emerson/Stolle or Emerson/Laver and, of course, against Newcombe/Roche.

The first great team from Australia were Bromwich and Dr Quist, followed by Sedgman and Ken Mc Gregor.Both teams could beat any other team ever formed at any time.

To win 15 major titles, that is the top. They knew each others' moves like brothers.
They did not link up in 1959, when Hoad teamed with Anderson or Trabert, but starting in 1960 they dominated the scene.
They also dominated the amateurs from 1952 to 1956, and Hopman's attempts to substitute Hartwig for Rosewall were very strange.

It was very close at the top in 1983, with McEnroe, Wilander, Connors and Lendl.

Click to expand...

Not in my book.Lendl didn´t win a major, Connors, other than winning the USO had a lousy year, Wilander won the Australian but failed elsewhere, and mac won the biggest one and also dominated the two indoor majors , with his win against Lendl at Dallas being, by far, the best match of the year.

What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year, or the best player over a twelve-month period, which might not be the same thing? After all, the "official" computer rankings didn't exist until relatively recently, so such judgements can't be made solely using those rankings.

What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year, or the best player over a twelve-month period, which might not be the same thing? After all, the "official" computer rankings didn't exist until relatively recently, so such judgements can't be made solely using those rankings.

Click to expand...

The official computer rankings are based on money won, which is one way of determining the number one player.

The official computer rankings are based on money won, which is one way of determining the number one player.

Click to expand...

The official computer rankings are based on ranking points, from how far one gets in tournaments, not from prize money won. Using your criteria, David Wheaton is the number 1 player for 1991 after getting $2,000,000 for winning the Grand Slam Cup. LOL.

The official computer rankings are based on ranking points, from how far one gets in tournaments, not from prize money won. Using your criteria, David Wheaton is the number 1 player for 1991 after getting $2,000,000 for winning the Grand Slam Cup. LOL.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see the point about Wheaton.
But the standards for 1959 (and today? where Djokovic guaranteed #1 before the final event) and 1964 and most Grand Prix and ATP years, is points awarded for placing in designated events. This corresponds very closely to prize money won in those events. There was also a bonus money pool in 1958 and 1959, the inaugural years for Grand Prix/ATP Masters type of annual series. The bonus money concept was not carried over into the 1964 series.
Why not just use prize money? Because using points is more dignified, less mercenary, and allows a clearer distinction between designated and non-designated events.